Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times wrote in his oped almost two years ago:

'I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible. A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force. So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might. First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.' ( Gideon Rachman, And now for a world government, Financial Times, December 8 2008 )

Mr. Rachman accurately reflected the immense momentum today towards world government which many a globalist had been working toward across generations rather openly, oftenboldly proclaiming that:

'We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.' (James Warburg in 1950 to the US Senate, cited in Project Humanbeingsfirst's Monetary Reform Bibliography)

The EU Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, only 59 years later on November 19, 2009, openly admitted in his first press conference in Brussels after being appointed president, that finally, “2009 is also the first year of Global Governance”:

'We are living through exceptionally difficult times. Financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival --- a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome, by a joint effort, in and between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of Global Governance with the establishment of the G-20 in the middle of financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the Global Management of our Planet. Our mission, our presidency is one of hope, supported by acts, and by deeds.' (press conference November 19, 2009 http://youtube.com/watch?v=QEqFtVrAgSo )

Mr. Van Rompuy too was accurate in his message of hope that Global Governance is “supported by acts and by deeds”.

But just what might these be?

A Council on Foreign Relations author had rather holistically outlined the underlying character of these supporting “acts” and “deeds” way back in the middle-stages of their planning-execution cycle in April 1974 as follows:

'In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.

Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.

Unvarnished Truths About US and Israel: From the pages of Time, Jan 7 1952

Tuesday, 07 December 2010 00:44

by M. Shahid Alam Ph.D.

Was there ever a time when a leading organ of the US media could speak the unvarnished truth about the links between the United States and Israel?

Consider this quote from Time magazine of January 1952, embedded in an article that explained its choice of Mohammed Mossadegh as its Person of the Year for 1951. It had no compliments for Mossadegh, the man who was spearheading his country's bid to take back its oil resources from the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. No surprise there.

Surprising, however, is Time's candor on Israel. It minces no words. US support for the creation of Israel had alienated the Middle East: it had been a costly error, motivated not by national interest but petty considerations of presidential politics. Truman had supported the creation of Israel in order to court American Jewish votes. This was the plain truth: a US President had placed his electoral chances ahead of a vital national interest. Apparently, in those days, Time could write the plain truth without worrying about the tide of flak from the American Jewish community.

Here is the quote, with italics added for emphasis:

"The word "American" no longer has a good sound in that part of the world [the Middle East]. To catch the Jewish vote in the U.S., President Truman in 1946 demanded that the British admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine, in violation of British promises to the Arabs. Since then, the Arab nations surrounding Israel have regarded that state as a U.S. creation, and the U.S., therefore, as an enemy. The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps. These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy.

"No enmity for the Arabs, no selfish national design motivated the clumsy U.S. support of Israel. The American crime was not to help the Jews, but to help them at the expense of the Arabs. Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion. The Arabs are well aware that Alben Barkley, Vice President of the U.S., tours his country making speeches for the half-billion-dollar Israeli bond issue, the largest ever offered to the U.S. public. Nobody, they note bitterly, is raising that kind of money for them."

Time does not see Israel as a victim. There is no mention of the 'only democracy in the Middle East' either. Instead, Israel had been created "at the expense of the Arabs." It refuses to "take the slightest responsibility" for the million Palestinian refugees. It is also the source of Arab hostility towards the United States.

Missing also is the cant – so common over the past half century – about Arab threats to Israel. Instead, Time speaks of Arab fears of Israel. "Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion." Prescient words too.

The true victims are recognized – the Palestinians – and there is sympathy for them too. "The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps." There is obfuscation too: the Arab refugees were created by the Israeli-Arab war. Israeli propaganda had succeeded even at this early date. There is no admission of Israel's planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians or the massacres that attended this outrage.

Astonishing too is the spectacle of a US vice-president at this early date campaigning for an Israeli bond issue: like a hired salesman, he tours the country, making speeches to sell Israeli bond worth half a billion dollars. Did Israel raise the full value of the bond issue? It is a neat sum, enough to buy an army the best weapons in those days.

Notable too is the Time's willingness – unthinkable today – to see the issue from an Arab perspective: how they see the world's failure to send the refugees back to their homes. "These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy." It is not often that the US media speaks of "U.S. perfidy."

Such journalistic candor was not good for Israel. The major Jewish organizations soon flexed their muscle: they organized to police what the US media could write or say about Israel. Their success was devastating. Israeli lies soon commanded unalloyed allegiance of every segment of American media.

Only recently that situation is beginning to change, as Israeli threats to US interests and to world peace become harder to ignore. This shift is tentative, however. Pro-Israeli forces are fighting back: and the few voices critical of Israel could be silenced by any number of events, not least another terrorist attack on US soil.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. Most recently, he is author of Israeli Exceptionalism (Palgrave, 2009). Visit his website at http://qreason.com. Write to him at alqalam02760@yahoo.com.

“The Middle Class Proletariat — The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.”

So, a few rumblings of discontent have surfaced, first with the students and now an interesting development, targeting corporate tax avoiders such as Topshop, owned by Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group who has his multi-billion empire registered in his wife’s name and who is resident in tax-free Monaco, where of course she’s really busy running the Arcadia empire.

“His wife Tina is the direct owner of Arcadia, and she is officially a resident of Monaco. This enabled her to gain a tax-free £1.2bn dividend in 2005.

Speaking in August about the tax status of his wife, Sir Philip told the BBC: “My wife’s not a tax exile – my family do not live in the United Kingdom, it’s somewhat different.”" — ‘Topshop’s flagship London store hit by tax protest‘, BBC News Website, 4 December, 2010 [my emph. WB]

Organized by UK Uncut, who have also targeted Boots, HSBC, Barclays and Vodafone, in an economy largely composed of consumers, as I suggested in 2008 it’s a logical development that corporate interests in the high street become the target of protest, especially when we’ve been screwed out of £80-90 billion to pay for their deficit.

UK Uncut had protests right across the UK. Shops in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Leicester, York, Bristol, Portsmouth, Southampton and Cambridge as well as here in London, were picketed, some protestors even supergluing themselves to shop windows.

UKUncut say that the total tax avoidance bill involved comes to a staggering £51 billion annually, though I’ve read figures as ‘low’ as £25 billion. Whatever, in two or three three years that would be enough to pay off the ‘deficit’.

The American people want to trust their leaders. Most Americans want desperately to believe in the American Dream, in the principles and values at the heart of that dream, in the essential goodness and decency of their nation. The problem is that their leaders have so routinely deceived them, so flagrantly betrayed their trust, manipulated their hopes, desires, and fears so frequently and for such ignoble purposes, that the very concept of truth has lost its purchase in American life. Big Media, Big Business, and Big Politics have turned professional journalism and American public discourse into a theater of the absurd, a house of mirrors, an echo-chamber designed to perpetuate corruption that serves special interests and the ruling class. The goal seems to be the creation of a public so crass it will accept any crime, any atrocity, even penury and enslavement.

Let's look at the evidence. Let's examine one iconic lie in the ever-lengthening litany of lies that so regularly come rolling off the tongues of America's political leaders.

"Wage and price controls have failed since the time of Diocletian. I ought to know. I'm the only one here old enough to remember that," Ronald Reagan famously quipped during a Republican debate in 1980 while he was running for president.

The remark ranks among the grossest misrepresentations of historical fact in modern American political discourse. It flies in the face of America's greatest economic and military accomplishments. Yet today Big Media commentators across the political spectrum still recall the quotation to burnish the widely popular president's reputation as "the Great Communicator," and, more specifically, to illustrate the then-69-year-old former actor's deft use of humor to deflect questions and concern about his age.

Reagan's joke was carefully calculated to deceive as well as to disarm. In addition to neutralizing fears that he was too old to be president, his comment promoted the political agenda of the Big Business interests he served so well. Less than a month from his 70th birthday when he was inaugurated, Reagan was America's oldest president. Though he wasn't old enough to remember Diocletian's reign, Reagan was in his 30s during World War II when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, America's 32nd President, instituted remarkably successful wage and price controls, essential elements of a larger economic plan that was astonishingly successful.

Make no mistake: It was the vast agricultural, manufacturing, and industrial capacity of the United States of America, efficiently and effectively organized, regulated, and expanded by the Roosevelt administration, that made possible the crushing defeat of the Axis powers in 45 months, less than four years from the day America entered the war.

FDR had resurrected the Advisory Commission to the World War I Council on National Defense in May of 1940 and added price stabilization and consumer protection divisions. He merged them, creating the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply (OPACS) within the Office for Emergency Management, by Executive Order (E.O.) 8734 on April 11, 1941. With E.O. 8875 he established the Office of Price Administration (OPA) within the Office for Emergency Management (OEM) on August 28, 1941. The Emergency Price Control Act of January 30, 1942 made OPA an independent agency with the power to place ceilings on all prices except agricultural commodities and to ration scarce supplies of other items, including tires, automobiles, shoes, nylon, sugar, gasoline, fuel oil, coffee, meats and processed foods. Eventually the OPA froze almost 90 percent of retail food prices. OPA also established rent controls and set maximum rents for most homes, apartments, rooming house and hotel rooms.

Roosevelt established the War Production Board (WPB) by E.O. 9024 on January 16, 1942, on January 24, with E.O. 9040 gave it supreme authority over procurement of materials and industrial production.

"The WPB's chair, Donald Nelson, received sweeping powers over the economic life of the nation – now on an official war footing – to convert and expand the peacetime economy to maximum wartime production." (S. Shimizu in The American Economy: A Historical Encyclopedia, Vol. 1)

"The national WPB's primary task was converting civilian industry to war production. The board assigned priorities and allocated scarce materials such as steel, aluminum, and rubber, prohibited nonessential industrial activities such as producing nylons and refrigerators, controlled wages and prices, and mobilized the people," encouraging scrap drives and more than 20 million victory gardens that produced 9 to 10 million tons of fresh fruits and vegetables, an amount equal to commercial fresh vegetable production figures.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is a three-volume epic in its American edition.

Some
commentators, bloggers and other writers, were quick to jump to the conclusion
that the avalanche of documents being released by WikiLeaks is part and parcel
of an Israeli/Mossad deception strategy. One implication being that WikiLeaks’
founder, Julian Assange is, knowingly or not, manipulated by Zionism.

On the basis of the first two or three days of
the Wikileaked revelations as reported by the mainstream media, in
America especially, there most definitely was a case for saying that the agenda
best served by the leaked diplomatic cables was that of the Zionist state of
Israel, its lobby in America and its many stooges in Congress. The essence of
the case was in the message that
Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world not
only because the Israelis say so but also because Arab leaders agree with them.

In my last post I
quoted Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, as
saying he thought it was possible that Wikileaks was being fed and manipulated
by intelligence services. And I stated my own belief of the moment that the question of
whether or not this is so was worthy of investigation.

But as the flow of leaked cables increases, and
with time for reflection, I no longer believe that such an investigation is
necessary.

The problem is not the manipulation of
WikiLeaks by any foreign intelligence service but, in effect, the
manipulation by key players in the mainstream media, in America especially, of
the material WikiLeaks is providing.